Anyway, those polls were about what people thought of their Senators, not about whether they'd vote for them when they're next up for election.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

Do know that one. Not sure if mine had something to do with Bertrand Russell or not, or I happened across it when I was coming across a lot of his stuff. It was a little longer, took a detour or two, and the language was a little more flowery - something like kindly men will be kindly anyways, but fucked if I can seem too ask Google the right question any more. It had been on a page with a bunch of other wonderful quotes and I found it once or twice by googling them and getting back to the page, but either its been reorganised or taken down, or I can't even get that right any longer... Little frustrating. Usually tend to give up after 15-20 minutes. Might have to go through my back-ups one day to see if I pinched the whole page and saved it as a text file. It was a nice resource.

Ever since SEO (search engine optimisation) came to the fore a few years back, the internet has really started to suck a bit. You almost want to Google sources rather than content, (and I can't remember the source in this case). I remember the days when the algorithm used to blackball metaspamming and so forth, now they teach you how to do it, and moronic asswipes with no life max out the ads to content ratio, and shovel their clickbait neurotoxic botullism above the useful stuff. Not even going to talk about youtube.

I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

I'd say a more accurate statement would be that it takes a strong ideological conviction and/or an authoritarian mindset. Many religious ideologies combine these two nicely but destructive secular ideologies are also able to seduce decent people. Religion is an easy and socially acceptable target but I'd argue that for example nationalism isn't much better in this regard.

Sure, but those approach fundamentalist religion in mindset. As Hitchens noted, the most religious state in the world is North Korea, where you wake up, go about your day, and fall asleep praising the Great Leader and the Dear Leader (I don't know what they're calling Un these days) all the while.

It's a lazy comparison that tries to hand wave the counter argument away. Besides, I said nationalism, not communism, nazism or juche. Nationalism creates conflict just like religious differences and actual religion isn't needed for people to start wars and do horrible shit believing that it's their duty. Nationalism also serves a function in organizing the society just like religion does and has done for a long time.

Despite having an even lower favorability rating from the American people than President Donald Trump, former 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will selectively campaign for Democratic congressional hopefuls for the decisive 2018 midterm elections.

Clinton's favorability rating sank to a new low of 36 percent, according to a December Gallup poll compared to a 40 percent job approval rating for Trump in the most recent Gallup poll from early February. Jaime Harrison, an associate chairman and counselor for the Democratic National Committee, told The Washington Post that Clinton plans to help candidates campaign that have a history of supporting her and her family, but Harrison said "she’s not going to be up front."

Despite plans to campaign for some Democrats, advisors and friends of Clinton said the former secretary of state wants to keep a low enough profile so as not to attract criticism from Republican candidates. "The reality is Hillary is a nuisance to the Democrats and a gift to Republicans," Sam Nunberg, a former Trump aide told the Post.

If there's one thing I've learned about the Democratic Party post-2008, it's that they will always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

She'll probably concentrate her attentions in areas that view her like a god.

Her plan is to focus on areas which she won overwhelmingly, whether people there actually like her or just despised Trump even more (at the time--remember, her approval rating is lower than his now).

The real reason for my annoyance at this story, though, is that we've seen, over the last eight or so years, just what happens when her wing of the Democratic Party is in control.

During the 111th Congress (the one elected in 2008), the Democrats controlled between 253 and 258 House seats, with the Republicans never holding more than 180. In the Senate, from July 7, 2009 (swearing-in of Al Franken) to February 3, 2010 (Scott Brown was sworn in on February 4), they controlled 58 seats which, with the two Independents (Sanders and Lieberman) gave them a filibuster-proof majority. Further, they controlled 29 state Governorships.

Compare this to the situation after the 2016 elections. The House--lost in 2010 and not recovered. The Senate--lost in 2014 and not recovered. The Presidency--lost, by none other than Sec. Clinton. An unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court opened up, and with the loss of the Presidency and failure to reclaim the Senate that too was lost (and, what is worse, many seats on lower federal courts remained open, and they have been being filled at a record pace--filled by young ultra-conservative judges whose views are already outmoded in modern society and will only become more so as time goes on and they enjoy their lifetime appointments). Governorships? Only 16 after the 2016 elections, to become 15 not long thereafter when Jim Justice in West Virginia decided to switch back to the GOP (and then to become 16 again in 2017). In state legislatures, over 1,000 seats were lost in those eight years, and, crucially, many were lost in 2010 (along with a net six governorships), after which redistricting occurred, in many states then to the great advantage of the Republicans, resulting in such ludicrous outcomes as the Democrats winning 83,468 more votes in Pennsylvania House races in 2012 but only 5 of the state's 18 seats.

This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, Tim Kaine, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and finally Hillary Clinton.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........

There was this thing called the GFC.

And sure, while a hypercompetent black guy, who managed to stop the contagion, even if he did listen to Volcker and a bunch of others a little too much, and passing healthcare, and mid-term apathy from the incumbents, all played a role - FOX stirred the base into a rabid frenzy, so the question is, even with disenfranchisement, and Gerrymandering, and Russian bots, and Cambridge Analytica, is Trump going to be a bigger midterm albatross than a black guy was in 2010?

(Assuming of course that he lasts that long. Bannon just spent two days in front of Mueller, and it'd be great if he flipped him because Trump would want a full debrief on what he said, and Bannon could record the entire train wreck, because there's no way Trump would shut up and just listen.)

This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........

There was this thing called the GFC.

Oh, I'm aware of that. And I'm aware of how successfully the right-wing liars managed to pin the blame for that on Obama when it was accelerated in its onset by Bush. (It was coming anyway, after the deregulation under Clinton, but the Bush tax cuts and wars sped up the timetable.) But the fact remains: the four people I named were primarily in charge of the Democratic Party during that time (whether as President, DNC Chair, or the Presidential nominee), and during that same time all the losses I outlined took place.

To be clear: I have no personal grudge against Hillary Clinton and wish her no harm. I despise, however, her positions (particularly on economic and foreign policy) and think that the evidence shows that when her ideology is in control of the Democratic Party, it hampers the Democrats and empowers the Republicans, and I think that her presence on the campaign trail will only serve to remind people of everything they hate about her and her ilk, however limited her campaigning.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........

There was this thing called the GFC.

Oh, I'm aware of that. And I'm aware of how successfully the right-wing liars managed to pin the blame for that on Obama when it was accelerated in its onset by Bush. (It was coming anyway, after the deregulation under Clinton, but the Bush tax cuts and wars sped up the timetable.) But the fact remains: the four people I named were primarily in charge of the Democratic Party during that time (whether as President, DNC Chair, or the Presidential nominee), and during that same time all the losses I outlined took place.

To be clear: I have no personal grudge against Hillary Clinton and wish her no harm. I despise, however, her positions (particularly on economic and foreign policy) and think that the evidence shows that when her ideology is in control of the Democratic Party, it hampers the Democrats and empowers the Republicans, and I think that her presence on the campaign trail will only serve to remind people of everything they hate about her and her ilk, however limited her campaigning.

So basically, we could've been spared 2014 and everything going forward from there if everyone just bowed their heads and went along with whatever Bernie Sanders spoke, and heeded his every word and voted for him instead of Clinton.

I also cannot help but see you basically telling people they should not have voted for Clinton and that Bernie was both a better candidate and spoke more to a "populist sentiment" that should have been heeded. So then, applying this logic, the minority voters who voted for Clinton over Sanders, by quite large numbers, should not have gone with her, but followed you and the many white voters of the Sanders campaign. Because I suppose according to this logic on display they do not know Good Progressivism, and should have obeyed their white saviors, and followed Sanders, as he and his supporters clearly know better than them what is good for them.

So I then must suppose you and other Sanders Supporters believe if only people had coalesced around Sanders instead of Clinton, then...what? You could have rode a wave of populist and in a number of cases protectionist support to the White House, and then commenced...hm, what is a good slogan for riding such a wave of support to the White House? Something catchy, indicating a return to greatness...Make America Excellent Again? How's that sound?

This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........

There was this thing called the GFC.

Oh, I'm aware of that. And I'm aware of how successfully the right-wing liars managed to pin the blame for that on Obama when it was accelerated in its onset by Bush. (It was coming anyway, after the deregulation under Clinton, but the Bush tax cuts and wars sped up the timetable.) But the fact remains: the four people I named were primarily in charge of the Democratic Party during that time (whether as President, DNC Chair, or the Presidential nominee), and during that same time all the losses I outlined took place.

To be clear: I have no personal grudge against Hillary Clinton and wish her no harm. I despise, however, her positions (particularly on economic and foreign policy) and think that the evidence shows that when her ideology is in control of the Democratic Party, it hampers the Democrats and empowers the Republicans, and I think that her presence on the campaign trail will only serve to remind people of everything they hate about her and her ilk, however limited her campaigning.

So basically, we could've been spared 2014 and everything going forward from there if everyone just bowed their heads and went along with whatever Bernie Sanders spoke, and heeded his every word and voted for him instead of Clinton.

I also cannot help but see you basically telling people they should not have voted for Clinton and that Bernie was both a better candidate and spoke more to a "populist sentiment" that should have been heeded. So then, applying this logic, the minority voters who voted for Clinton over Sanders, by quite large numbers, should not have gone with her, but followed you and the many white voters of the Sanders campaign. Because I suppose according to this logic on display they do not know Good Progressivism, and should have obeyed their white saviors, and followed Sanders, as he and his supporters clearly know better than them what is good for them.

So I then must suppose you and other Sanders Supporters believe if only people had coalesced around Sanders instead of Clinton, then...what? You could have rode a wave of populist and in a number of cases protectionist support to the White House, and then commenced...hm, what is a good slogan for riding such a wave of support to the White House? Something catchy, indicating a return to greatness...Make America Excellent Again? How's that sound?

Because populists are ever interchangeable.

Do you really think Trump and Sanders are interchangeable, or are you just trolling?

That aside, just because Sanders didn't put as much emphasis on identity politics as Hillary did in his campaign, doesn't mean he doesn't care about minorities. If he didn't, then why did he march with Dr. King? And if you judge by their heritage, Hillary is far more of a "white savior" than Bernie. Bernie is a Jewish-American of Russo-Polish descent, which is not only a more "ethnic" background than Hillary (an Anglo-Dutch Protestant), but also a group that has a very long history of being discriminated against. While American Antisemitism has generally been less virulent than that of other countries (at least on a societal level), Jews were still pretty badly discriminated against in the United States. Bernie grew up in the 40s and 50s, so he likely experienced this discrimination firsthand. Can he really be called a "white savior" if he was in the same boat as the minorities he fought for?

And I'd say Hillary supporters were "progressive policing" just as much as Bernie supporters, and probably moreso. Remember the "Bernie Bros?" Remember what Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright said about female Sanders supporters?

If Democratic primary and caucus voters had chosen Hillary Clinton in a fair contest, where the DNC had indeed been a neutral arbiter and not tilting the scales in favour of any particular candidate, then you would not see the sort of anger from the populist wing of the party that you see now.

Nonetheless Sanders voters voted for Clinton in the 2016 election in a much higher percentage than Clinton voters did for Obama in 2008--remember PUMAs?

As for populists being "ever interchangeable," that's a base slander and you know it. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pushed for a repeal of the ACA. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have put a crazy person like Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court or similarly insane, out-of-touch nuts on the lower federal courts. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pushed for tax cuts that will go almost entirely to the ultra-rich and blow a $1.5 trillion dollar hole in the deficit (kept so low only because they raise lower- and middle-class taxes by $4.5 trillion to "offset" the $6 trillion in cuts the rich get). You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have wiped away DACA like so much rubbish.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

If Democratic primary and caucus voters had chosen Hillary Clinton in a fair contest, where the DNC had indeed been a neutral arbiter and not tilting the scales in favour of any particular candidate, then you would not see the sort of anger from the populist wing of the party that you see now.

Nonetheless Sanders voters voted for Clinton in the 2016 election in a much higher percentage than Clinton voters did for Obama in 2008--remember PUMAs?

As for populists being "ever interchangeable," that's a base slander and you know it. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pushed for a repeal of the ACA. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have put a crazy person like Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court or similarly insane, out-of-touch nuts on the lower federal courts. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pushed for tax cuts that will go almost entirely to the ultra-rich and blow a $1.5 trillion dollar hole in the deficit (kept so low only because they raise lower- and middle-class taxes by $4.5 trillion to "offset" the $6 trillion in cuts the rich get). You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have wiped away DACA like so much rubbish.